I filed a complaint with the IRS because the Commission on Presidential Debates falls under the same 501(c)(3) status as these churches. The CPD interfered with the campaigns of Johnson and Dr. Stein by not allowing them part of the debate even though they were on the ballot of enough states to win the electoral votes.

This lawsuit could open up a whole new non-profit status that allows these groups to have influence on elections before restricting them.

Delawheredad:The other problem wit this law is the question of favoritism. Are you going to go after politically active inner city churches like Obama's church or are you only going after redneck southern churches? What about Louis Farrakhan calling on the U.S. to stop supporting Israel and to stop voting for candidates that support Israel? He does and has done that.

Do you take the tax exemption away from the Society of Fiends for telling its congregants to vote for anti-war candidates or pacifist issues? What if the help soldiers defect to Canada?

To enforce this law fairly you practically have to have someone attending and monitoring every church, mosque, and synagogue and NO ONE want's that.

I think this is a lot of the reason the IRS hasn't done that - at least, not on a large scale - no matter who's in charge; it would be a logistical nightmare fraught with political complications, and would yield little benefit.

I think another reason is that if they ever actually do something concrete like that, it will be challenged in court, and the IRS would prefer its status to remain murky so they can use it as a weapon.

Delawheredad:The other problem wit this law is the question of favoritism. Are you going to go after politically active inner city churches like Obama's church or are you only going after redneck southern churches? What about Louis Farrakhan calling on the U.S. to stop supporting Israel and to stop voting for candidates that support Israel? He does and has done that.

Do you take the tax exemption away from the Society of Fiends for telling its congregants to vote for anti-war candidates or pacifist issues? What if the help soldiers defect to Canada?

To enforce this law fairly you practically have to have someone attending and monitoring every church, mosque, and synagogue and NO ONE want's that.

"Society of Fiends"? Cute. Of course, the Society doesn't tell its members to do anything, since there are no priests or preachers, much less bishops among the Quakers.

How about we just blanket-enforce the prohibition on partisan political activism against ALL religious organizations in this country, period? Or they can pay their taxes -- the way all churches in countries like France pay taxes. Works for me.

This is pretty brilliant. The government cannot make the first move against a bunch of churches because of the political atmosphere, but an outside group can force the government to do it. Churches should have to file. If they do charity, they can file for that portion of their business that is a non-profit charity. Otherwise, a church is a business. It's ridiculous that large land-holding churches don't have to pay a cent of property tax. It's absurd that pastors who build mansions for their rectory and have stretch hummers that get everything tax free. This would be a great way to raise revenue.

Churches with tax exempt status telling there congregation to vote one way or another is a crime. If they have tax exempt status they know this and signed the contract to that effect when applying for the tax break. They should immediately loose that tax break and owe full taxes as a political organizer for the year the offense took place in. Loose as well the tax exempt status for 4 years. But this is not the biggest problem with entities with tax exempt status. The law is a Charity with this tax exempt status only has to pay out 10% of what they collect. 90% could go to the CEO's golden parachute if they wanted to. These charities paid it out to their buddies in the add business. It doesn't say what the kick back was.http://www.charitynavigator.org/Rank Charity Program Expenses Professional Fundraising Fees1 Disabled Police Officers Counseling Center 4.4% 94.6%2 Cancer Survivors' Fund 7.4% 89.2%3 The Committee for Missing Children 11.1% 86.7%4 Firefighters Charitable Foundation 7.7% 85.4%5 Operation Lookout 9.8% 84.2%6 Wishing Well Foundation USA 8.5% 80.9%7 National Vietnam Veterans Foundation 9.7% 79.8%8 Law Enforcement Education Program 3.0% 79.3%9 Children's Charity Fund, Inc. 8.1% 77.9%10 National Police Defense Foundation 17.3% 77.2%

eagles95:All i know is for the weeks leading up to the election my church (which is very conservative) didn't mention politics once. But this past week had a sermon on how the country is going to hell because we here in Wisconsin elected a dirty smelly lesbian to serve in the Senate and how this is the downfall of America. We were then told that gay people are just really straight people that are confused and our pastor has helped dozens of people in our congregation lead healthy straight lives when they told them they had gay thoughts. It was the same song and dance about how God doesn't hate gay people but they are going to hell unless they suppress the gay. It makes me want to send a link to the sermon to the IRS since our church puts all the sermons online for shut-ins to watch.

eagles95:All i know is for the weeks leading up to the election my church (which is very conservative) didn't mention politics once. But this past week had a sermon on how the country is going to hell because we here in Wisconsin elected a dirty smelly lesbian to serve in the Senate and how this is the downfall of America. We were then told that gay people are just really straight people that are confused and our pastor has helped dozens of people in our congregation lead healthy straight lives when they told them they had gay thoughts. It was the same song and dance about how God doesn't hate gay people but they are going to hell unless they suppress the gay. It makes me want to send a link to the sermon to the IRS since our church puts all the sermons online for shut-ins to watch.

See, that stuffs ok by the law.

Saying "Vote for X because if you don't you'll burn in hell" is not ok. It's coercion at best, and if you believe it there is a hell and your pastor speaks for God, well, do you risk your immortal soul to vote for who you want to or vote for who your pastor says God wants you to vote for?

And that in a nutshell is why we don't allow electioneering from the pulpit.

mksmith:How about we just blanket-enforce the prohibition on partisan political activism against ALL religious organizations in this country, period?

The government absolutely cannot do such a thing. It would violate both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment for the government to attempt to enforce a blanket prohibition on political speech or activity by private citizens.

Elzar:Religious folks believe and act upon ridiculous beliefs which have no physical evidence or scientific proof - isn't that punishment enough?

The French Prophets of the 18th century thought that the Church and all organized religion corrupts Christ's message and is an abomination. They believed that they Church was the work of the Antichrist and condemned it. They also considered the patriarchal nature of Judaism and Christianity to be blasphemous, since they held that god created man and woman in his image. Thus, god is a entity that is both masculine and feminine and that when Christ returns, it will be in the form of a woman. To them, such balance is necessary. Were they crazy or just more spiritual? At the time they were considered ridiculous and persecuted.

qorkfiend:mksmith: How about we just blanket-enforce the prohibition on partisan political activism against ALL religious organizations in this country, period?

The government absolutely cannot do such a thing. It would violate both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment for the government to attempt to enforce a blanket prohibition on political speech or activity by private citizens.

Lunchlady:Dr Dreidel: Lunchlady: A church is going to need to publicly endorse a candidate by name for anything to happen.

Isn't the point of this suit that the churches DID EXACTLY THAT that during this cycle? And proudly flaunted their nose-thumbing by publishing ads, op-eds and making public statements to the effect of "The IRS can't touch GAWD's will!"?

It's one thing for the IRS to claim prosecutorial discretion when not prosecuting suspected illegal electioneering by nonprofits. It's quite another when you have a bishop ON RECORD saying that his priests must read his electioneering screed on Sunday and him (and others) daring the IRS to come after them.

The cynic in all of us knows that the USG/IRS isn't going to neuter churches like that. Laws be damned, no one is going to take on religious establishments - they'll always win the ground game.

// reclassify the churches as SuperPACs if they want to do electioneering

It was "reported" that pastors told Romney they would help anyway they can, and then the same churches/preachers released ads. Way too much plausible deniability.

"[A] letter from Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky accusing the administration of an unprecedented 'assault upon our religious freedom' and implying that Catholics who pull the lever for Democrats who support abortion rights are like those who condemned Jesus to death. 'Since the foundation of the American Republic and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, I do not think there has ever been a time more threatening to our religious liberty than the present,' Jenky writes in the letter, which he ordered priests in his Peoria diocese to read at all Masses on Sunday."

"Responding to Jenky's letter, James Salt, executive director for Catholics United, a progressive group, said Jenky was 'using the pulpits of his diocese for partisan proclamations' and he said that was not only wrong but was driving young people away from the church. 'By brazenly violating IRS and church guidelines against partisan activity, Bishop Jenky has shown that he is more interested in following the paths of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson than the Gospel of Jesus Christ'..."

There is a group of pastors that have recorded themselves specifically endorsing a candidate and sent the recordings to the IRS. They, like the FRRS, are trying to trigger an enforcement, but for very different reasons. They're pretty confident that they can get the prohibition against political speech nullified on constitutional grounds and if I understand their argument right, they may actually pull it off.

Dr Dreidel:Lunchlady: Dr Dreidel: Lunchlady: A church is going to need to publicly endorse a candidate by name for anything to happen.

Isn't the point of this suit that the churches DID EXACTLY THAT that during this cycle? And proudly flaunted their nose-thumbing by publishing ads, op-eds and making public statements to the effect of "The IRS can't touch GAWD's will!"?

It's one thing for the IRS to claim prosecutorial discretion when not prosecuting suspected illegal electioneering by nonprofits. It's quite another when you have a bishop ON RECORD saying that his priests must read his electioneering screed on Sunday and him (and others) daring the IRS to come after them.

The cynic in all of us knows that the USG/IRS isn't going to neuter churches like that. Laws be damned, no one is going to take on religious establishments - they'll always win the ground game.

// reclassify the churches as SuperPACs if they want to do electioneering

It was "reported" that pastors told Romney they would help anyway they can, and then the same churches/preachers released ads. Way too much plausible deniability.

Plausibly deny this.

"[A] letter from Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky accusing the administration of an unprecedented 'assault upon our religious freedom' and implying that Catholics who pull the lever for Democrats who support abortion rights are like those who condemned Jesus to death. 'Since the foundation of the American Republic and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, I do not think there has ever been a time more threatening to our religious liberty than the present,' Jenky writes in the letter, which he ordered priests in his Peoria diocese to read at all Masses on Sunday."

"Responding to Jenky's letter, James Salt, executive director for Catholics United, a progressive group, said Jenky was 'using the pulpits of his diocese for partisan proclamations' and he said that was not only wrong but was driving young people away from the church. 'By brazenly violating IRS and church ...

Interesting. I hope I'm wrong for fairness sake, but I see this as having the potential to backfire incredibly badly.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:That sounds about right to me. Other than the Scalia. I know he really likes being a judge but he is mindful of his PR. He doesn't want to go out looking like he was holding on just to hold on.

"the Scalia" will stay because of his unshakeable conviction that he, and he alone, is the only man up to the job. (This includes his fellow Justices.)

I've met the man. Disdain just oozes from him. He's not going *anywhere*.

And some men just don't retire well. My father was one of them. If he didn't get to put on the robe and sit on the bench every day he would not have known what to do with himself. He had no hobbies, wasn't a putterer (he couldn't change the wiper blades on his car, for goodness sake) but he sure ran a tight courtroom. (For the record, he was a ALJ for FERC til the day he died.)

Weaver95:if church pastors violated the law...then there SHOULD be an investigation and face sanctions for their actions.

look, there's a process here. if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact. but you can't just ignore the rules. either the IRS rules apply to everyone or they apply to none of us.

No matter how you slice it it ends up with selective enforcement and general unfairness.

The folks filing the suit just seem to want to go after the evangelicals.

You have to go after everybody or you can't go after anyone.

There are who knows how many store front houses of worship in this country? How do you know what is being said in any one at any time. If you nail the mega church led by the closeted bigot who preaches against gay you also have to go after the tiny Mosque that preaches for the destruction of Israel and tells its members to vote against Israel. You ALSO have to go after the Synagogue where the Rabbi says vote for Israel.

How in the world could you enforce this law WITHOUT spying on everyone?

No-one is saying they don't have the right to speak or endorse candidates. That is their right.

It's just that doing so means they have to give up their tax-exempt status.

If the government repealed the tax-exempt status of churches along with the prohibition on political speech, that would probably be fine (Constitution-wise, at least; the political backlash would probably be pretty heavy). Removing legal status from specific organizations as punishment for political speech probably would not be.

kronicfeld:I don't know that I want to see a precedent set whereby one can sue the government for its exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

So the FFRF has to abide by the same laws as the churches and if they were to break this law they would be sued. But the IRS says that all of the churches breaking the law won't be sued.

Just think about that for a minute.

If the local police said that white people would no longer be pulled over for breaking speed laws, would you consider that "prosecutorial discretion?" Or would you call that illegal? Especially when the cops continue to pull over people of color for breaking those same laws...

Delawheredad:While there are violations of this law all the time enforcing it opens a can of worms. If one rogue pastor in a local Episcopal church breaks this rule who is responsible for the fine? The pastor violated the edicts of his parent organization so it would be unfair to hold them responsible. You also can't fine the local church because the statement was the opinion of the pastor and not necessarily the church. What do you end up with a fifty dollar fine on the rogue pastor?

ItsJustJake:kronicfeld: I don't know that I want to see a precedent set whereby one can sue the government for its exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be), but I've always heard that the IRS is not the government - it's just a company that collects taxes for it. In any case, if they are blatantly ignoring people avoiding taxes illegally for political reasons, or simply not attempting to enforce the law as it is laid out, then it is an issue that must be corrected.

Why should those churches be free to break the law?

Why do people keep saying nonsense like this?

Saying the IRS is not the government? Seriously?

Yeah, some conspiracy theorists have wacky ideas like that, it's like that "sovereign citizen" bullshiat. Try telling a Federal Judge that the IRS is just a company that collects for the government and not really part of the government.

Contention: The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States.

Some argue that the IRS is not an agency of the United States but rather a private corporation, because it was not created by positive law (i.e., an act of Congress) and that, therefore, the IRS does not have the authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code.

The Law: There is a host of constitutional and statutory authority establishing that the IRS is an agency of the United States. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated "that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under § 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws." Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971).

Pursuant to section 7801, the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce such laws. Based upon this legislative grant, the IRS was created. Thus, the IRS is a body established by "positive law" because it was created through a congressionally mandated power. Moreover, section 7803(a) explicitly provides that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall administer and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.

Relevant Case Law:United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 1983) - the court declared "[c]learly, the Internal Revenue Service is a 'department or agency' of the United States."Salman v. Dept. of Treasury, 899 F.Supp. 471, 472 (D. Nev. 1995) - the court described Salman's contention that the IRS is not a government agency of the United States as wholly frivolous and dismissed his claim with prejudice.

Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141, 147 (N.D. Ind. 1984) - the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, rejecting Young's claim that the IRS is a private corporation, rather than a government agency.

A misconstruction (misconstu-ing? ...whatever the correct word form is there) of Scripture.

Unless I misunderstand the Old Testament (and I am grossly simplifying and paraphrasing here), the tithe went to provide for the priests, whose labor was not a paid position.

In the New Testament, we see tax collectors - who often collected more than the State was due and pocketed the excess. We also see the Temple Tax - which Jesus paid on behalf of himself and Peter, saying to give Caesar what is Caesar and give God what is God's (the tax being Caesar's). Jesus further neither advocated the presence of nor removal (violently or otherwise) of Caesar or civil government (which is supported by taxes, just as it was in His time), telling Pilate that the authority of civil government comes from God (not necessarily the men and women who hold those offices, but the offices themselves - I think we can all agree that certain tyrants through world history were not acting in accordance with the will of any higher power, regardless of what name you give that power).

In short, if Jesus would not advocate a particular individual for political office or the removal of any individual from office, and if Jesus paid His taxes, and if we, as Christians are supposed to strive to be like Him in our thoughts and actions, then what business do we have electioneering or advocating the idea of not paying taxes?

Those who brought the lawsuit were right to do so - just as the government has no business interfering in the business of the church, so the church (as a corporate body) has no business interfering in politics.

Like other non-profits, religious institutions also provide a public service. Many run soup kitchens and thrift shops and support the community in small but well-meaning ways.

My church runs a thrift shop that is practically giving clothes away (and literally do in some cases). But at the same time, our priest doesn't stand up at the pulpit and tell us who to vote for or why one candidate will cause the country to go to hell in a handbasket. But we apparently seem to be in the minority.

While I can understand having a paywall between Churches and the State and why the IRS never bothered to come up with policies addressing something so nebulous as "Is preacher XYZ electioneering?" I'm seeing this as the next "SuperPAC Revolution That Gets WAY THE FARK Out Of Hand Before It Gets Reformed."

So wake me after SuperPACs get reformed, and I'll have something to watch.

I think I'll go with just leave it alone. You don't religions cool don't like em. You think it's a good idea to rile up a bunch of religious folk well then we have an issue. Just check your history books it is always a bad idea to piss of the religious folk. always. Even when they have no logical reason the religious people can be extremely dangerous (inquisition I'm looking at you here). I think it's best to not give them an actual target.

The IRS should go after the obvious offenders. If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about

So you are in favor of selective enforcement.

Sorry everyone is equal under the law. You can't enforce laws for one set of folks and ignore them for others. If you sue one church you have to sue everyone who violates the law, a practically impossible task.

Are you truly OK with a religious leader telling his or her congregation or parish, in their capacity as a religious leader, that if they do not vote the way he tells them too, they will be punished, either in this life or the next?